W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:57:50 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, StyleBeyondthePunchedCard <www-style@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, Martin J. <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290BCB1F@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
The fact that these specs are drafts and imply no commitment of conformance or compatibility with subsequent versions of the document is a reality also, and was already one ten years ago. As such, are you asking us to be accountable for third parties’ deliberate denial of a clear, explicit and deliberate contract? If people choose to ignore the contract stated by these documents, they are responsible for their decision. If reality turns out to disagree with their theory I expect them to deal and update said theory; getting upset and objecting to reality seems pointless and unlikely to achieve anything.

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:46 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: liam@w3.org; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org; Martin J.
Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

p.s. lest you accuse me of promoting such a process, please note that I have always argued against writing such references into a spec; i am no apologist for this behavior; but it is what it is, and it's out there, so address that reality...
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
One could also argue that taking 10 years to move this spec to REC forced the hand of this particular industry. So it cuts both ways.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote:
“How is this done? By considering any form of published W3C document as a PAS "publicly available specification" [1] with a persistent URL. This is done regardless of the warnings in the status section.”

So because other organizations have deliberately chosen to ignore explicit w3c disclaimers, w3c WGs are expected to deal with the consequences of those decisions after the fact ? Is it any surprise that engaging in a dialogue on such a basis ought to be somewhat difficult?


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 05:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 June 2011 05:58:20 GMT